Sexism; Or The Turning of Tables

[dystopiaINC]

I think that if women want to be on the front line then they should be allowed. If we are never allowed to do anything how will we know if we can be successful or not.

I know a massive row was caused when a woman did all of the special forces training for a BBC documentary/competition.

Gender shouldn't even come into it. If someone can pass the training needed to be in the military, then they should be let in.

funny thing is i agree. but i also notice that places like the military and the fire department have lower standards for women. not kidding, had a sociology class that made us watch video that had this segment about the differences, and there was this fire department training where they had to pull s dummy out of a "burning" building, the man carried the dummy over his shoulder with out "hurting" it, while the woman dragged it by the feet down stairs (she couldn't lift it). and she passed.

did you even read the list you just posted? most of this are just, well, stupid. and some are out right false or else so miniscule it might as well be unmentioned. personally i wouldn't even notice if i didn't "benefit" from anything on that list.

Thank you for so aptly demonstrating number 46.

ah i see the point of 46 now. it's the "i'm right and if you say i'm not then this makes me right" bullet point. ok then.

"46. I have the privilege of being unaware of my male privilege."

ah i see now after reading it again it all makes sense! i must have no idea that being male gives me privileges. and if i think it doesn't, based on a list like this where most the points made are frivolous and really don't amount to much, then point 46 makes it all ok. because one of the "Privileges" is not even knowing i have "privileges" so by saying that i don't think these affect me much for better or worse I'm in fact showing just how much i "don't know i have privileges"

 

[Eisenfaust]

i was recently in a university lecture entitled "women's health" (mandated by the syllabus for the Health Psychology course) without a whisper or shadow of a corresponding "men's health lecture. when queried about this, the lecturer responded that, since it's been men who have been the focus of medical testing/research in the last 50 years, it's time for something to emphasise women's health.

and in a way, that's fine... i can understand the drive to address that inequality, but (forgive me for this statistical rambling here, it gets better later), you cannot present findings of one demographic and say they are significant without comparing them to the other major demographics (an analysis of the health of indigenous australians is presented side by side with an analysis of white australians, to show that there is actually a problem). for bringing this up, and subsequently trying to address simultaneous sexism AND statistical error, i was called a sexism... Grade A stuff, right there...

however, the hilarious kicker was when i brought up the fact that she clearly thinks it's women's turn! it's been men for 200 years, dammit, surely it's women's turn now! a statement to which she readily agreed. leaving aside the issue of whether or not it'll be men's turn again in 200 years, i asked the question "in america, african american's were kept as slaves for hundreds of years. is it now THEIR TURN to own white slaves?" dumbfounded silence for 30 seconds... vistory, you sexist *****!


anyway... i have a legitimate question on affirmative action (it's not that present/institutionalised in australia, so i'm unsure about some things). To what degree is it acceptable to hire a woman JUST because she's a woman (irrespective of qualifications, etc). does affirmative action not dictate that a highly qualified male will be ignored if there's a less qualified female, or black person there, also vying for the job? agreed, it's affirmative action to correct an imbalance, but is hiring a woman just because she's a woman not sexist to both the man AND the woman? the man is being treated unfairly, the woman is reduced to "she's a female, hire her" as opposed to any consideration of qualifications.


i've just never really understood how woman can't hate affirmative action as much as/more than anyone else... "congratulations ladies! we don't care who you are, where you come from or what you can do, but so long as there's nothing swinging between your legs, WELCOME ABOARD!" - great if you want an easy job, shit if you actually want yourselves to be valued to any meaningful degree

did you even read the list you just posted? most of this are just, well, stupid. and some are out right false or else so miniscule it might as well be unmentioned. personally i wouldn't even notice if i didn't "benefit" from anything on that list.

Thank you for so aptly demonstrating number 46.

so... if any male disagrees with you, they automatically prove you right? no offence, but that has a bit of the "a man supports rape if..." list stench about it...

 

[trooper6]

Pretty much everyone is privileged in one aspect or another. And as long as people aren't willing to recognize their privilege, aren't even willing to entertain the possibility that it might exist, well, there's only so far the dialogue can go.

That's right. It is about overlapping circles of privilege and oppression. Just because one has one element of oppression doesn't negate their privilege. I see this most often when working class white men will say, "Well, I'm working class--I don't have privilege! I get treated poorly!" I respond, "Well, yes, you suffer class oppression. But you also have white and male privilege." I also see some Michigan Womyn's Music festival types bust out all sorts of transphobia and when you call them on it they say, "But I have female oppression!" And I say, "Yes, and cisgender privilege."

We just have to recognize the intersectionality of our privileges and our oppressions and figure out how to make this world a bit of a better place for people.

 

[trooper6]

anyway... i have a legitimate question on affirmative action (it's not that present/institutionalised in australia, so i'm unsure about some things). To what degree is it acceptable to hire a woman JUST because she's a woman (irrespective of qualifications, etc). does affirmative action not dictate that a highly qualified male will be ignored if there's a less qualified female, or black person there, also vying for the job? agreed, it's affirmative action to correct an imbalance, but is hiring a woman just because she's a woman not sexist to both the man AND the woman? the man is being treated unfairly, the woman is reduced to "she's a female, hire her" as opposed to any consideration of qualifications.

That's not how affirmative action works. You do have to be qualified. But it is to stop those companies for whom it just never seems that women are ever qualified. Or people of color. Somehow the top spots keep getting filled by the same Brads and Chips who hang out at your country club. But they are just the most qualified. Crazy huh?

You take a look at the University of California system. Ever since California made it illegal to take into account people's race when looking at admissions, the number of black and Latino students radically dropped at the top 3 schools: UCLA, UCBerkeley and UC Santa Cruz. These three schools started turning down lots and lots of black and Latino students who had 4.0 GPA (the highest one can normally get) and high SAT test scores. They got the highest they could get...but yet they still couldn't get in, even though they were highly qualified. Why? Because most of those black and latino students went to poor schools that couldn't afford to have AP classes that allow you to inflate your GPA above the maximum. The kids from the richer schools would be able to get 4.5 out of 4. So you get a school with very few black and latino students and qualified black and latino students don't get to go to their own state school.

When the school is able to take race into account as an admissions factor...along with all of the other non-academic things they take into account (like sports skills, musical skills, student leadership skills, extracurriculars, work experience, etc), then you get some more students of color (still not that many and the privileged people with money still get to go to great schools)...and the university environment is better for everybody. The classroom, the business, society is better when you have qualified people from different points of view and experiences working together. It is better for my students if there is someone who is a first generation college student in the classroom, or a working class student, or a non-traditional aged student, or students of color, or queer students, international students, veterans, etc. The more perspectives the better the education for everyone.

 

[b3nn3tt]

You take a look at the University of California system. Ever since California made it illegal to take into account people's race when looking at admissions, the number of black and Latino students radically dropped at the top 3 schools: UCLA, UCBerkeley and UC Santa Cruz. These three schools started turning down lots and lots of black and Latino students who had 4.0 GPA (the highest one can normally get) and high SAT test scores. They got the highest they could get...but yet they still couldn't get in, even though they were highly qualified. Why? Because most of those black and latino students went to poor schools that couldn't afford to have AP classes that allow you to inflate your GPA above the maximum. The kids from the richer schools would be able to get 4.5 out of 4. So you get a school with very few black and latino students and qualified black and latino students don't get to go to their own state school.

I would argue that that's more an issue of wealth/class than race. Those kids aren't being turned away because they're black, but they couldn't afford extra classes. I'm sure there are some black kids who could afford the extra classes, and some white kids who couldn't.

And to be honest, I would also say it was wrong before if kids were being judged on race rather than circumstance.

 

[trooper6]

You take a look at the University of California system. Ever since California made it illegal to take into account people's race when looking at admissions, the number of black and Latino students radically dropped at the top 3 schools: UCLA, UCBerkeley and UC Santa Cruz. These three schools started turning down lots and lots of black and Latino students who had 4.0 GPA (the highest one can normally get) and high SAT test scores. They got the highest they could get...but yet they still couldn't get in, even though they were highly qualified. Why? Because most of those black and latino students went to poor schools that couldn't afford to have AP classes that allow you to inflate your GPA above the maximum. The kids from the richer schools would be able to get 4.5 out of 4. So you get a school with very few black and latino students and qualified black and latino students don't get to go to their own state school.

I would argue that that's more an issue of wealth/class than race. Those kids aren't being turned away because they're black, but they couldn't afford extra classes. I'm sure there are some black kids who could afford the extra classes, and some white kids who couldn't.

And to be honest, I would also say it was wrong before if kids were being judged on race rather than circumstance.

Race and class are not easily separable in the US. Especially considering how schools are funded from property taxes and banks have had a long standing policy of redlining (i.e. refusing to give mortgages to people who lived in certain--i.e. black and latino--neighborhoods)--a policy that only recently was made illegal. There are larger structural issues that are tied to race that have class and then educational and economic implications.

The median income for a white household is $133k, for a Latino household it is $6k and for a black household it is $5.6k...there are then the huge difference in unemployment between black and white people in the US.

http://money.cnn.com/2011/07/26/news/economy/wealth_gap_white_black_hispanic/index.htm

And race is part of a person's circumstance. As is a number of other things that universities *do* take into account when looking at admissions. There are people who get into college who don't have the best grades, but they are great football players and the school wants a good football team. There are a lot of really rich people who don't have very good grades at all but get into Harvard because their father and father's father got into Harvard and they are legacies...that is a form of affirmative action no one complains about. Some schools have decided they really want to improve their symphony, because that helps them improve their endowment which helps them improve the educational experience for all students...so they enroll some red hot violinists who may not has as good SATs as some other kid who won't help the university in that way.

And also? California has a policy that if you graduated in the top 1% of your school you are guaranteed a spot in the UC system...but the very best UCs (UCLA, Cal, SC) don't participate. So the top 1% of Compton High can't go to UCLA and gets filtered into Riverside or Irvine...which all have higher black/Latino populations. There is a top tier of the UCs and they refuse to participate in the state mandate, and the lower tiers which don't get to say no. And then there is a gap in diversity in the top 3 and the rest of the UCs.

Also, it is better for the education of the white students if there are also people who don't look like them in the classroom. As it is better for everyone.

ETA: Note, private universities still have the ability to look at race as a factor among many other factors. And in all the private universities I've been around, including the one I teach at now, they not only care about racial diversity, they also care about class diversity. I have spoken at many panels and been part of recruiting drives for poor students and first-generation college students regardless of color. This isn't an either/or situation. A really good school will look at many, many different elements to who an applicant is and how they would fit into that university's culture and what they can bring to the institution and what the institution can bring to them. And still, in this school that I teach at that cares very much about diversity, still have only a handful of black students...who regularly receive harassment from some racist groups--the retention rate isn't really that high. The white working class students have a much higher retention rate.

Life is complicated. We can't just pretend that race or class or gender or sexuality just doesn't exist or matter...because all you have to do is look at the make up of our Congress, or the CEOs of the Fortune 500, or who gets tenure, etc to see these things still matter.

 

[The_Graff]

I wholly believe that us males do not have it as bad as women did in the previous eras.

oh really? throughout history, and yes even today, men have been called to sacrifice everything up to and including their lives for women. think about it (before responding with generic feminist diatribe) on the sinking ship, what is the call "women and children first" even placing it the other way around "children and women first" seems wrong to us. for the entirety of human history the safety and as far as possible comfort of women has been the main focus of life for most men.

think of another example (im brit, so i will focus on britain) jut before the first world war in britain we had the sufferage movement, who came known as the sufferagettes due to the main press attention being on the women involved (a great number of men were involved on the sufferage movement as the right to vote was contingent on owning a caertain acreage of land). history classes, movies and pop culture in general have remembered these a great cry for equality. and indeed equality was the main buzzword used by the women ivolved. but where were these brave champions of equality when the draft came, and british men were called to go and die in the trenches? to die for the protection of these women who were not required to defend themselves, as equals? where were the protests of these protofeminists then? where were the ladies throwing themselves at race-horses and attempting arson, or the siege of parliament for the ideal of equality in military service and risk of death?

modern accidental deaths at work figures bear this out ... women are like every other self proclaimed victim group, equal rights when it suits them, special treatment at all other times.

tl;dr: its not that long, c'mon, back to the top.

In the case of the Titanic, for example, a large number of the 1st class male passengers made it into lifeboats while a large number of the poorer women and children did not. And that was in the case of an actual attempt to let women and children go first; in a similar (later) incident the men -- who had heard of the deaths on the Titanic -- dropped their chivalry pretty quickly and the majority of survivors were able-bodied young guys, who were able to fight their way into the lifeboats. So I wouldn't exactly say that the lives of women are always valued very highly!

As for WWI, I'm pretty sure a few of those women were on the battlefield, actually, and many more stayed home to do jobs that the men who were drafted couldn't do. And how in the world was WWI about the "comfort of women"? As far as I know a bunch of men started it, a bunch of men continued it, and then a bunch of men were drafted to end it... Women didn't have a lot of political power in the early 1900s, yanno. And I wouldn't call multiple continent-spanning wars either "safe" or "comfortable" for anyone involved -- if the wellbeing of anyone was of high importance maybe (German) men wouldn't have started so much shit.

And more generally, when has there ever been a law that you can beat your husband, but only with a stick thinner than your thumb? Or that if you rape a boy he has to marry you? Or that young men cannot leave the house without a relative to escort them, or with their faces uncovered? You gonna try to pretend that men have honestly being treated as subhumanly as that, historically?

in the point i was making about world war one, i do not believe the average rifleman gave much of a shit about the size of the austro-hungarian empire or the assasination of Arch-duke ferdinand. they fought to keep their wives and families safe from invasion. also, quoting laws from wildly divergent time periods and cultures as if hey were all on the books at one time in one place is a poor argument. women in the 'western' or developed world now have greater power than men. this is not a personal opinion, it is fact. the feminism movement has allowed women to have the choice to do as they please, whilst denying this to men. if the woman wants to study and work then that is good if they want to stay at home and be supported by the study and work of a man then thats good. if she cannot pass the physical tests to join the armed forces, police, or fire service then the tests will be made easier for her; placing huge numbers of people at risk due to some members of each service being physically less able. if she wishes to she may go to a bar, tell a man she wants sex but is on the pill. trick him into making her pregnant, then decide whether she wants to destroy his freedom - by legally stealling a chunk of his pay-check every month (whilst allowng him little to no access to his own flesh and blood) or if she would rather make a false allegation of rape. then in the months leading up to the trial HIS face and name are plastered over the front page of every newspaper/news show on TV, meanwhile HER identity is treated like she is working for the secret ervice, to protect her. thats beforeyou get into the question of females being given lesser sentances for crimes tan men.

all in all, if women want equality with men (and i have never seen anything to indicate that they do) they must start reducing their own legal power and surrender their positiion as the sex that everyone bends over backwards for; and yet still remains less succesful - even with every arm of the state and public opinion bhind them women cannot compete with men hmm ... what meaning can we take away from that?

 

[trooper6]

women in the 'western' or developed world now have greater power than men. this is not a personal opinion, it is fact.

Really? Is that why the US Senate is majority women, the congress is majority women, the joint chiefs of staff is majority women, the CEOs of Fortune 500 companies are majority women, the 20 Richest people in the world are majority women, police chiefs, military commanders, top paid actors, top paid athletes, all women...

oh wait. It is the exact opposite of that.

 

[b3nn3tt]

.

Unfortunately the whole thing is a fairly vicious cycle; parent didn't go to college, so can't get well-paying job. They can't then afford to send their child to college, and the whole thing starts over. And aside from that there are the other factors you mentioned, such as sport or music scholarships. But to be honest I consider those a problem in their own right, and a problem with the Ammerican college system in general. Really, it should be the people with the best grades who get in.

But my point was, if race, rather than circumstance was the deciding factor then white kids with a GPA of 4.0 who couldn't afford extra classes would be ignored in favour of black kids.

Anyway, we have dived wildly off-topic. So I will bid you good day at this point, but I would be happy to discuss this further in a thread that relates to this subject.

 

[cobra_ky]

ah i see the point of 46 now. it's the "i'm right and if you say i'm not then this makes me right" bullet point. ok then.

"46. I have the privilege of being unaware of my male privilege."

ah i see now after reading it again it all makes sense! i must have no idea that being male gives me privileges. and if i think it doesn't, based on a list like this where most the points made are frivolous and really don't amount to much, then point 46 makes it all ok. because one of the "Privileges" is not even knowing i have "privileges" so by saying that i don't think these affect me much for better or worse I'm in fact showing just how much i "don't know i have privileges"

it's the "these things seem frivolous to me, because i haven't experienced them day in and day out for my entire life" bullet point.

so... if any male disagrees with you, they automatically prove you right? no offence, but that has a bit of the "a man supports rape if..." list stench about it...

Oh please, don't even get me started on what a crock that list was.

I never claimed I was proving anything. Most of the things on that list are subjective experiences anyway. It's just a question of whether you think those experiences and the way women feel about them are valid.

 

[Aprilgold]

Yup. Its getting to be the same with most minorities nowadays.
Black only clubs/events/scholarships/etc are perfectly fine. A white only one would be racist.
Its not okay to mock homosexuals because its what they are yet its okay to mock jocks and manly men which is pure fucking stupidity.
Someone also recently commented to me on this very forum that the world is still sexist because theres only 20% of women CEOs... Yeah, because its the worlds fault that not as many women have the drive, the qualifications, the intellect or even just the desire to make it to the top... and why should everything have to be 50/50? -.-;

Long story short, no one wants true equality. They just want their group to be on top and are not above using shit that happened hundreds of years ago, shit that has absolutely nothing to do with them, to justify their stupid, petty demands.

Welp, YOU ARE FUCKING RIGHT!
I hate, HATE doing these types of comments, but your god damn right, and your video is 100 PERCENT right. You said what I could have said but you did it 100% BETTER then I could.
People can say what they want, but in a god damn light, everyone has = rights to a VERY LARGE extent, in the USA, there are only very small fixes that need to be changed by businesses. But other then that, not much needs to be DONE, just people want to be on top.

I think Sexism is gone. What we're seeing now is just immature game developers.

Sorry, got to point this out, your either not on the right thread or blind. Sexism exists, just the media ignores any sexism towards men, which does happen.
Also, game developers aren't sexist people, making a game and coding takes forever *And drains your brain* so if they name something, its named that because its the point of that thing in game.

 

[Evidencebased]

I wholly believe that us males do not have it as bad as women did in the previous eras.

oh really? throughout history, and yes even today, men have been called to sacrifice everything up to and including their lives for women. think about it (before responding with generic feminist diatribe) on the sinking ship, what is the call "women and children first" even placing it the other way around "children and women first" seems wrong to us. for the entirety of human history the safety and as far as possible comfort of women has been the main focus of life for most men.

think of another example (im brit, so i will focus on britain) jut before the first world war in britain we had the sufferage movement, who came known as the sufferagettes due to the main press attention being on the women involved (a great number of men were involved on the sufferage movement as the right to vote was contingent on owning a caertain acreage of land). history classes, movies and pop culture in general have remembered these a great cry for equality. and indeed equality was the main buzzword used by the women ivolved. but where were these brave champions of equality when the draft came, and british men were called to go and die in the trenches? to die for the protection of these women who were not required to defend themselves, as equals? where were the protests of these protofeminists then? where were the ladies throwing themselves at race-horses and attempting arson, or the siege of parliament for the ideal of equality in military service and risk of death?

modern accidental deaths at work figures bear this out ... women are like every other self proclaimed victim group, equal rights when it suits them, special treatment at all other times.

tl;dr: its not that long, c'mon, back to the top.

In the case of the Titanic, for example, a large number of the 1st class male passengers made it into lifeboats while a large number of the poorer women and children did not. And that was in the case of an actual attempt to let women and children go first; in a similar (later) incident the men -- who had heard of the deaths on the Titanic -- dropped their chivalry pretty quickly and the majority of survivors were able-bodied young guys, who were able to fight their way into the lifeboats. So I wouldn't exactly say that the lives of women are always valued very highly!

As for WWI, I'm pretty sure a few of those women were on the battlefield, actually, and many more stayed home to do jobs that the men who were drafted couldn't do. And how in the world was WWI about the "comfort of women"? As far as I know a bunch of men started it, a bunch of men continued it, and then a bunch of men were drafted to end it... Women didn't have a lot of political power in the early 1900s, yanno. And I wouldn't call multiple continent-spanning wars either "safe" or "comfortable" for anyone involved -- if the wellbeing of anyone was of high importance maybe (German) men wouldn't have started so much shit.

And more generally, when has there ever been a law that you can beat your husband, but only with a stick thinner than your thumb? Or that if you rape a boy he has to marry you? Or that young men cannot leave the house without a relative to escort them, or with their faces uncovered? You gonna try to pretend that men have honestly being treated as subhumanly as that, historically?

in the point i was making about world war one, i do not believe the average rifleman gave much of a shit about the size of the austro-hungarian empire or the assasination of Arch-duke ferdinand. they fought to keep their wives and families safe from invasion. also, quoting laws from wildly divergent time periods and cultures as if hey were all on the books at one time in one place is a poor argument. women in the 'western' or developed world now have greater power than men. this is not a personal opinion, it is fact. the feminism movement has allowed women to have the choice to do as they please, whilst denying this to men. if the woman wants to study and work then that is good if they want to stay at home and be supported by the study and work of a man then thats good. if she cannot pass the physical tests to join the armed forces, police, or fire service then the tests will be made easier for her; placing huge numbers of people at risk due to some members of each service being physically less able. if she wishes to she may go to a bar, tell a man she wants sex but is on the pill. trick him into making her pregnant, then decide whether she wants to destroy his freedom - by legally stealling a chunk of his pay-check every month (whilst allowng him little to no access to his own flesh and blood) or if she would rather make a false allegation of rape. then in the months leading up to the trial HIS face and name are plastered over the front page of every newspaper/news show on TV, meanwhile HER identity is treated like she is working for the secret ervice, to protect her. thats beforeyou get into the question of females being given lesser sentances for crimes tan men.

all in all, if women want equality with men (and i have never seen anything to indicate that they do) they must start reducing their own legal power and surrender their positiion as the sex that everyone bends over backwards for; and yet still remains less succesful - even with every arm of the state and public opinion bhind them women cannot compete with men hmm ... what meaning can we take away from that?

Yes, let's never forget the cases in which women lie to men (and I dunno... hide their condoms? ) in order to get pregnant and have a billion babies and steal all their money and then claim they were raped so they can get the guy sent to jail (at which point he can't actually pay her child sup--DOESN'T MATTER!) and then join the military and fail all the tests and then get our whole damn country invaded by Nazis (but...but there aren't any Na--SHHHHH!!) and then go on trial for treason but go free because vaginas is why! OH GOD THE WOMEN ARE STEALING OUR MANLY ESSENCES! HIDE YOUR DICKS! HIDE YO--

...Oh, sorry, excuse me, I got caught up in all the batshit crazy paranoia into which your comment quickly descended.

 

[Eisenfaust]

ah i see the point of 46 now. it's the "i'm right and if you say i'm not then this makes me right" bullet point. ok then.

"46. I have the privilege of being unaware of my male privilege."

ah i see now after reading it again it all makes sense! i must have no idea that being male gives me privileges. and if i think it doesn't, based on a list like this where most the points made are frivolous and really don't amount to much, then point 46 makes it all ok. because one of the "Privileges" is not even knowing i have "privileges" so by saying that i don't think these affect me much for better or worse I'm in fact showing just how much i "don't know i have privileges"

it's the "these things seem frivolous to me, because i haven't experienced them day in and day out for my entire life" bullet point.

so... if any male disagrees with you, they automatically prove you right? no offence, but that has a bit of the "a man supports rape if..." list stench about it...

Oh please, don't even get me started on what a crock that list was.

I never claimed I was proving anything. Most of the things on that list are subjective experiences anyway. It's just a question of whether you think those experiences and the way women feel about them are valid.

"the way women feel about them"? how is that in any way relevant? clearly the way men feel about them is irrelevant (or at least, self-defeating). focusing on how any particular gender feels about them rather than whether or not they're there (as opposed to valid) seems again, like the "a man supports rape if..." list. (and i'm not saying this list is comparably stupid, i'm saying the defence offered to that list, and point #46 seem to be in concert...)

i'm also noting how there's no "list of ways women have it better" list... it's easy to believe a story until you hear the other side...

 

[AdeptaSororitas]

Universal Law #1: The Emperor Protects.

True, but I meant:
Universal Law #2: Everyone has it hard.
Followed by:
Universal Law #3: But things are getting back on track.

 

[Moonlight Butterfly]

Most people said some of the things on the list were true which in comparison to 'we get made fun of in comedy programs' is kind of serious.

In no way do men have it worse of than women in the gender gap.

Yet people here decide to side with the completely wrong OP and pick up on my post instead. Im guessing this is because this is a male dominated forum. Also becuase some of them might be outdated.

I posted that list becuase it is a good generalisation of the prejudices women can expect to meet in the same vein as the OP generalised ideas.

It's funny how it's okay for the OP to make claims but as soon as a woman say 'no that's wrong' she is slapped down. Even though it is is wrong and most people here said 'yeah that is sadly true' to a lot of the points.

I never intended for that post to be a completely serious list of proof I just wanted to present it in comparison to the insignificant reasons the OP came up with.

A quote from the OP

That's right - I believe sexism has reversed, and is now against men.

You really believe that? Really?

 

[cobra_ky]

"the way women feel about them"? how is that in any way relevant? clearly the way men feel about them is irrelevant (or at least, self-defeating). focusing on how any particular gender feels about them rather than whether or not they're there (as opposed to valid) seems again, like the "a man supports rape if..." list. (and i'm not saying this list is comparably stupid, i'm saying the defence offered to that list, and point #46 seem to be in concert...)

i'm also noting how there's no "list of ways women have it better" list... it's easy to believe a story until you hear the other side...

It's relevant to the comment I was responding to, which dismissed everything on that list as "stupid", "false", or "miniscule". It's easy to downplay the severity of these problems or dismiss them entirely when you've never experienced them firsthand; all you have to do is ignore women who tell you they're suffering from them. Being a man means you never have to really think about these issues. That's a privilege.

Plenty of people have brought up the ways women are privileged over men, although in most cases its simply a side effect of traditional male-dominated gender roles. Women are favored for child-rearing, get custody of kids more often, aren't as likely to be accused of rape, serve less time than men for the same crimes, generally take less dangerous work, and so on. But really, a woman should be making that list, not I. The whole point of lists like that is to recognize your own privilege.

 

[Talshere]

snip

7: Im not saying that 1985 was worse than now...Well, I am, but that 2011 the fact that "women must take a mans name" is simply not true. A woman may do whatever the hell she wants with her own name. Noone looks down on a woman for not taking a mans name. In the same way people dont look down on having sex out of wedlock. Or having children without being married. This stigma ONLY exists for men taking womens names.

I AM CONFUSED!!!!! ARGUMENT IS CONTRARY TO YOUR ARGUMENT >..<

A woman may do whatever the hell she wants with her own name, and so can a man. But I flat out disagree that nobody has an opinion about the taking of names, or that everybody is totally fine with sex outside of wedlock, or that the social opinion of such situations is equal for each sex. Case in point: "Slut" is an insult that applies to women who have lots of sex with lots of men; "Stud" is a compliment that applies to men who have lots of sex with lots of women.

1:My mother works for the county council. Your damn right they are all on the same pay If they weren't it would be all over the papers. This is what Job descriptions and pay grades are all about. If they dont have equal wages, and they do the same job and are as good at at they can go to the court and make themselves rich off a sexual discrimination case. This isnt exactly without precedent in the UK. Even if they arnt as good at the job and are paid less the court will post a value with they believe is the maximum she can be paid less than her coworker based on performance. Which is more then any male counterpart would get because they would just think, "he is better at it then me, he deserves the money".

I still dont see where your coming from tbh. Women are socially pressured not to negotiate for higher pay? What? Really? Noone has ever told me that I have to do this...Ever. Its not a social its a business thing. When your accepting a job, you get as much pay as you can. I thought EVERYBODY was smart enough to do that? Your telling me that society as a whole is telling women "Look love I know you COULD ask for 30k but you should probably only got for 28, we wouldn't want you earning everything you could". Sorry I call bull. This does not happen in any way mean or form. In any Western court an action for case discrimination will be upheld if pay is not equal. Employers largely don't discriminate because if they DO take taken to court, and they will eventually, it will cost them millions. Finally, none but the most base uneducated people, IE. noone in any sort of power, seriously expects women to be on less pay then their male counterparts.



7: If a couple have been together 15 years, have 2 kids, live together, but remain unmarried and each keep their own name, noone but a few of the older generation will care. Even they will only mumble. For all intent and purpose, noone cares.

As to sleeping round. Even this is fading fast. There is a weird period around 16 where you are viewed as a slut, and over about 30 or 40. Byt at 16 its because sex is a social taboo because its viewed as a private thing that nobody does, and over 40 because its the wrong generation. I know a girl who has slept with 20+ guys. When I heard, I didnt care. You know what her boyfriend thinks? "Im the one who managed to keep her". Yeah you get jokes about it and about how her experience puts you to shame, but its the sort of joking between friend that ANYONE might get. Dirty man whore isnt exactly an uncommon term either. I admit that it is generally correct to say women get the rough end of the stick. But I also think that within 50 years, noone will care. The only reason it was look down upon for women to do it is historical a religious. A man sleeping round had no repercussions other than maybe a fungal infection. A woman sleeping round is liable to pick up a kid. In times when you were expected to have a man helping provide because "a working day" was 12+ solid hours for most people yeah, it was a valid point. Getting a kid without a partner could get, you, or your baby killed. Since that reasoning is now redundant, people are no longer caring.

Whether of not you call a woman a slut among the new generation is now more likely then not routed in whether you believe sleeping round it a good life choice. If you dont think it is, then chances are you look down on men who do it just as much.

 

[b3nn3tt]

Most people said some of the things on the list were true which in comparison to 'we get made fun of in comedy programs' is kind of serious.

In no way do men have it worse of than women in the gender gap.

Yet people here decide to side with the completely wrong OP and pick up on my post instead. Im guessing this is because this is a male dominated forum. Also becuase some of them might be outdated.

I posted that list becuase it is a good generalisation of the prejudices women can expect to meet in the same vein as the OP generalised ideas.

It's funny how it's okay for the OP to make claims but as soon as a woman say 'no that's wrong' she is slapped down. Even though it is is wrong and most people here said 'yeah that is sadly true' to a lot of the points.

I never intended for that post to be a completely serious list of proof I just wanted to present it in comparison to the insignificant reasons the OP came up with.

A quote from the OP

That's right - I believe sexism has reversed, and is now against men.

You really believe that? Really?

Sorry to come back to you on this. I don't want to seem like I'm just picking on you, but you are one of the more vocal contributors to this thread and you make well-reasoned arguments, so I'm just more inclined to respond.

I'll start by saying that I do disagree with the OP. But I think it is important to note that there are areas in which men are at a disadvantage, and by immediately jumping in with 'but women have it worse' you're trivialising the issues that actually do affect men.

There are two sides to every argument. For example, women are more likely to be sexually harassed at work. However, they are also more likely to be taken seriously in the event of such harassment, and the disciplinary action against their harasser will be harsher. Women are encouraged to give up their job to look after newborn babies, but men are discouraged from doing the same thing.

Again, sorry to keep beating the same drum, and again this is not meant to single you out, but the focus should be on removing all inequalities, rather than only those that affect one's own sex.